User talk:Jpmonroe: Difference between revisions

Someone feels free to revert my productive edits because I use a shared IP. That's not the way it's supposed to work here I thought. But, if it's the price of avoiding vandalism, I guess I'm willing to log in. Jpmonroe (talk) 07:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

I can has mop?

Hi Jpmonroe! Thank you for your support in my RfA (87/3/3). I truely appreciate the many votes of confidence, and I will exert myself to live up to those expectations. Thanks again! - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Jack Kemp FAC

I should thank you profusely for giving me some guidance to furhter progress on the Jack Kemp article. The previous objector had complained of "bizarre, awkward, unexplained structures and wordings", which did not give me much actionable guidance. However, your complaint about choppiness and passive voice gave me grammatical changes to look for. I spent the whole day attempting to address your concerns in this regard and hope I have converted you to support or at least neutral. here is what I did to address your concerns.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 02:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

While I appreciate your hard work on the article, I still don't think the writing is yet up to Featured standards. As just one example, why is the Gary Hart thing the first sentence of a paragraph about his campaign, which then shifts to funding problems, which then shifts to policy. The material is just not organized in a clear fashion. I took a stab at the lede and a paragraph about HOPE, which really didn't strike me as neutral. Jpmonroe (talk) 05:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I have renominated Jack Kemp which you previously opposed. I made a very solid effort to improve its grammar and structure, which I mentioned to you previously. I also have augmented the article by adding additional quality sources. I did not see your continued objection and presume you have not seen my continued improvement of the article. I hope for your support now, but will reevaluate the article based on the comment above.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 00:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I have reevaluated based on your comments. With respect to neutrality, I don't look at neutrality on a sentence or paragraph basis. He does thing that make people refer to him as a hero multiple times in the press (including two or three cited references). At other times he does things that make people call him a con artist. Then at other times he is the go to guy who they rely on and at other times he is just a neglected lackey. I present all of these in the article and removal of any would be POV. In other words, I present the ups and downs and highs and lows from reports by Time, Newsweek, Atlantic Monthly, New York Times and U. S. News & World Report. POV claims are really claims against these sources as being biased. We are the tertiary source and should report all facets of the career noted by these reputable secondary sources. I have done some reorganization, but will revisit the paragraph that troubles you above.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 00:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Attributing opinions of Kemp is fine and appropriate. However, factual descriptions must be scrupulously neutral. I previously made a few edits to clean up wording I felt was problematic, so you can see the type of thing I meant in the edit history. I'm not at all suggesting that you personally have a bias, but rather that strong opinions in the sources have filtered over into parts of the text. I also copy-edited the lead, so that gives an indication of the type of writing issues that bothered me. I'll have another look and see if I can support this time around. Jpmonroe (talk) 01:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Have read the revised article. I won't oppose; however, there is too much non-neutral wording for me to support. Jpmonroe (talk) 02:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like you are attempting to skirt around accusing me of being a Republican. I am not. Such accusations should not be mad lightly and I would certainly take action against you if you did. Kemp is the first Republican page I have created or worked on extensively. My other politicians include Template:GAstar Michelle Obama, Template:GACicon Jesse Jackson, Jr., Template:GAFicon Toni Preckwinkle, and Sandi Jackson.

Certainly not. There was no accusation whatsoever. Indeed I explicitly stated otherwise "I'm not at all suggesting that you personally have a bias". Your lack of personal bias does not mean that your writing will always be unbiased. I take offense at being accused of making an accusation which I most explicitly did not. Jpmonroe (talk) 02:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Your edits have taken Kemp's high school years and garbled them with his youth years. The changes that did not contribute to this wiped out any explanation of his high school at all. In addition the facts that were carefully arranged with footnotes were shuffled with disregard to footnote location. I have reverted such edits. I appreciate your efforts, but don't just drag facts cited by one reference to another sentence cited by three others.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Look, I've been biting my tongue, but your writing is generally poorly organized. Random facts here and there, and then back to the same facts in completely different paragraphs. I've been trying to clean it up. But, your tone is rather unfriendly, and I'll steer clear of the article from here out. Since you haven't responded on the article talk, I'll just note that my concerns on the FAC request and trouble you no more. Jpmonroe (talk) 02:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

AN/I

I responded to your request for additional info. I guess I was wanting to know if the anon is free from the block if they were blocked at their previous IP? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

If it's provably the same user, then I believe the block would still apply. He denies it. If I were you, I'd save myself some hassle and just let it go. If the new IP is disruptive, it can be blocked on its own merits. Jpmonroe (talk) 10:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)